Recession Drives Increase In Those Representing Themselves In Court; Trend Alarms Observers

In Chicago, Illinois, the Chicago Tribune reports:

• Legal service has never come cheap, but lawyers, judges and other experts say that for many people the recession has made it a nearly impossible expense. That has created a surge of litigants who must navigate the often-bewildering justice system by themselves. Advocates and court officials have responded with expanded advice desks, instructional Web sites, even plans to connect litigants with law students by computer. But the trend still alarms many observers, who say courtrooms weren't made for amateurs. "In a complex domestic relations dispute or commercial dispute, it's kind of like trying to do surgery on yourself," said Bob Glaves of the Chicago Bar Foundation, which funds numerous legal assistance programs. "If you're not trained in these things, you have no chance."

***

• Cook County Associate Judge Thomas More Donnelly, who until recently ran a courtroom for those fighting wage garnishments and frozen bank accounts, said such contests are often glaring mismatches. He recalled cases in which defendants didn't know about a state law that allows debtors to keep up to $4,000 safe from creditors. He would tell them about it, but if they didn't understand what he was saying, he would have to drop the matter lest he cross the line separating impartial judge from advocate. "It would be so distressing to me," he said. "There are things that are known to everyone in the courtroom except the debtor."

For more, see Recession forces more to act as own lawyer (Observers warn that courtrooms aren't made for amateurs).

---------------------

On a related point, a recent story involving an unrepresented Texas homeowner fighting lender U.S. Bank and loan servicer Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (formerly known as Fairbanks Capital Corp.) in a post-foreclosure eviction matter serves as a reminder that judges have an obligation to cut the litigant acting without the benefit of legal counsel some slack when appearing in court proceedings, and a recent court ruling by a Texas appeals court also says as much.(1) For more, see:

• The Southeast Texas Record: Appeals court cuts pro se plaintiff a little slack,
• Thomas v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al., NO. 09-08-00030-CV, (Tex. App.--Beaumont; July 16, 2009).

(1) In this regard, the Federal courts have also expressed their view on the liberal construction of court filings of pro se litigants. For example, see Bivings v. Wakefield, 316 Fed. Appx. 177 (3rd Cir. 2009):

• We construe pro se filings liberally, and hold them "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). See also United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999) (discussing the "time-honored practice of construing pro se plaintiffs' pleadings liberally.")

and Zilich v. Lucht, 981 F.2d 694 (3d Cir. 1992):

• When, as in this case, the plaintiff is a pro se litigant, we have a special obligation to construe his complaint liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).